Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1995 22/1–2 Two Seemingly Contradictory Aspects of the Teaching of Innate Enlightenment (hongaku) in Medieval Japan SUEKI Fumihiko =…k Ë w The Sanjð-shi ka no kotogaki (The thirty-four item report) is one of the most representative works in the tradition of hongaku thought in the Japanese medieval Tendai school. Two seemingly contradictory aspects can be found when analyzing the theory found in this text. The first aspect is that of the absolute af³rmation of this world on the basis of the principle of self-consistency, which seems to require no practice for realizing enlighten- ment. The second is the realization of enlightenment at the “degree of ver- bal identity,” that is, the second stage of the Tendai “six degrees of identi- ty.” Although this is considered the easiest way of realizing enlightenment, it is not the same as the af³rmation of the world that requires no practice at all. This contradiction saved hongaku teachings from being completely corrupt. THE CONCEPT OF hongaku û· (innate enlightenment), first encoun- tered in the Ta-sheng ch’i-hsin lun Øñ|=Ç [Awakening of Faith], underwent centuries of profound development in China and Japan. The most radical expression of this doctrinal tradition is found in the medieval Japanese Tendai school. The term “hongaku thought” (hon- gaku shisõ û·„`) can be applied either broadly to refer to all teach- ings on innate enlightenment, or narrowly to refer only to the devel- opment of the concept within the Tendai tradition; in this paper I will use the narrower meaning. The academic study of hongaku in modern Japan was begun by Shimaji Daitõ and subsequently carried on by Hazama Jikõ and Tamura Yoshirõ.1 In 1973 Tamura and three other scholars published a critical, annotated edition of many hongaku texts (TADA et al.). This 1 On the history of the studies of Tendai hongaku shisõ (Tendai hongaku thought), see SUEKI 1993, pp. 284–311. HABITO 1991 is a good introduction to Tamura’s ideas. 4 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 22/1–2 work opened the way for further research and helped to popularize studies into hongaku teachings in Japan. Tamura identifies world-affirmation (genjitsu kõtei êׇÏ)as one of the main characteristics of hongaku thought, and praises the teach- ings as the “climax” of Buddhist philosophy.2 He nevertheless points out a basic weakness in the hongaku teachings: their tendency to deni- grate the importance of religious practice, a tendency often identi³ed as one of the causes of moral corruption in the Buddhist order. As a result many of the new traditions of Kamakura Buddhism criticized hongaku teachings even as they were inµuenced by it. After Tamura, two major trends emerged in the academic study of the hongaku teachings: Hakamaya Noriaki’s criticism of hongaku thought and the late Kuroda Toshio’s (1926–1993) theory of the Buddhist establishment as an exoteric-esoteric system (kenmitsu taisei ßO¿£). Hakamaya’s 1989 book Hongaku shisõ hihan û·„`−| [A critique of hongaku thought] caused a sensation, for it presented a radical chal- lenge to views widely accepted by Buddhist scholars.3 Hakamaya uses the term hongaku in a very broad sense to include any syncretistic ten- dency involving Buddhism and the indigenous traditions of India, China, and Japan.4 Although his interpretation is too broad to be of any real use in the discussion of hongaku in Japanese Tendai, Haka- maya nevertheless views medieval Tendai positions as typical examples of hongaku thought. His criticisms focus on two concerns. First, HAKAMAYA claims that hongaku thought can be employed to justify discrimination under the guise of equality (1989, pp. 134–58). Since, according to the hongaku teachings, everything in the world is a manifestation of enlightenment, social discrimination too can be rationalized away as an expression of truth. Second, Hakamaya criti- cizes hongaku teachings as “pseudo-Buddhism.” His position is closely related to that of his colleague, MATSUMOTO Shirõ (1989), who links the concept of tath„gatagarbha (Buddha nature) with the non-Buddhist belief in a substantive substrate underlying the phenomenal world. Hongaku thought having developed from the tath„gatagarbha teach- ings, this criticism applies to the notion of innate enlightenment as well. Both Hakamaya and Matsumoto began their studies in the field 2 See TAMURA 1973. It should be pointed out, however, that Shimaji Daitõ had already used the expression “the ‘climax’ of Buddhist philosophical history” to describe hongaku thought (SHIMAJI 1931a, p. 138). 3 SWANSON 1993 and HEINE 1994 introduce some of Hakamaya’s ideas to Western readers. 4 This idea is clearly expressed in the preface of his book; see HAKAMAYA 1989, p. 9. See my criticisms of Hakamaya’s interpretation in SUEKI 1993, pp. 313–16. SUEKI: Two Contradictory Aspects of Innate Enlightenment 5 of Tibetan Buddhism, and have applied Geluk school criticisms of tath„gatagarbha thought to the hongaku teachings.5 Hakamaya’s criticisms have provided a valuable and necessary stim- ulus for Japanese Buddhist scholars, who tend to avoid discussions of essential issues and uncritically adhere to conventional interpreta- tions. He has oversimplified the situation, however, as will become clear in the following consideration of hongaku thought and its posi- tion in the history of Buddhist philosophy. The Marxist historian Kuroda Toshio considered hongaku thought from a slightly different perspective.6 The academic consensus at the time Kuroda wrote saw Kamakura Buddhism as the new Buddhist mainstream of the Kamakura period, arising from the common peo- ple’s efforts to overthrow the previous political structure.7 Kuroda, however, asserted that during the Kamakura period the new Buddhist schools remained marginal, and that establishment Buddhism main- tained its mainstream position by developing into what Kuroda calls kenmitsu Buddhism (because it combined the exoteric Kengyõ and eso- teric Mikkyõ teachings). Hongaku thought was the ideology of this establishment and reµected the views of the ruling classes. Thus Kuroda portrayed hongaku thought in a negative manner, though he recognized its historical signi³cance. The concerns raised by Hakamaya and Kuroda are valid, and have made it difficult to share Tamura’s view of hongaku thought as the cli- max of Buddhist philosophy. This negative evaluation, however, should not deter us from investigating the hongaku tradition—indeed, the position of hongaku thought as the ideology of the establishment and its profound influence upon Japanese culture make it, if any- thing, even more important as an object of study. We must thus enter a new stage of hongaku research. The first step in this must be textual studies. The material already published repre- sents but a small fraction of the extant manuscripts, and much of it has not been critically edited. In addition, many of the manuscripts are written in sõsho u–, a cursive style of calligraphy that is dif³cult for the uninitiated to decipher, so that cooperation with specialists who can read such manuscripts is vital. Second, the contents of the 5 Both Hakamaya and Matsumoto have been inµuenced by Yamaguchi Zuihõ, a Japanese scholar on Tibetan Buddhism. For Yamaguchi’s own criticism of Japanese Buddhism from the standpoint of Tibetan Buddhism, see YAMAGUCHI 1988, p. 180. 6 Kuroda’s ideas are presented in KURODA 1975. His analysis has had a great impact on younger historians. TAIRA 1992 is one work produced under Kuroda’s inµuence. See also SUEKI 1994. MATSUO 1988 is a work that takes a critical approach to Kuroda’s theory. 7 This idea is well represented by INOUE 1956. 6 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 22/1–2 texts must be analyzed and situated within the context of Buddhist thought. Although Tamura’s works serve as a starting point, the cri- tiques of Hakamaya and Kuroda have made it clear that more detailed studies are necessary. Cooperation with foreign scholars may provide new perspectives. The present paper addresses the second need by analyzing the con- tents of a basic hongaku text known as the Sanjð-shi ka no kotogaki XYvOª– [The thirty-four item report]. This text (hereafter abbre- viated as Kotogaki) is also referred to as the Makura no sõshi 3P— [The pillow notebook], and is attributed to the famous Tendai scholar Genshin è= (942–1017). Recent textual studies have proven that it was not written by Genshin but have yet to demonstrate convincingly either who wrote it or when it was composed. It most probably dates from the late Heian or early Kamakura period (late twelfth or early thirteenth century).8 As mentioned above, one of the main characteristics of hongaku thought is its absolute af³rmation of the phenomenal world. This position is, however, quite similar to the basic Mah„y„na doctrine that “de³lements themselves are identical to enlightenment” (bonnõ soku bodai ˜ñ“¬Ø) or “sa½s„ra is identical to nirv„«a” (shõji soku nehan ´‘“Ãæ). What is the difference between the position of ordinary Mah„y„na Buddhists and that of the advocates of hongaku thought with regard to this issue? This question will be analyzed in the ³rst sec- tion below. Another issue concerns whether or not advocates of innate enlight- enment thought actually advocated the abandonment of practice. We will demonstrate that hongaku thought does indeed include an ele- ment of praxis, and clarify how this aspect related to the world- af³rmation of the hongaku advocates. The Problem of Self-Consistency As noted above, statements such as “de³lements themselves are identi- cal to enlightenment” and “sa½s„ra is identical to nirv„«a” are com- mon in Mah„y„na Buddhism. But what do they actually mean? If the de³lements are enlightenment, is practice necessary in order to attain enlightenment? If sa½s„ra is nirv„«a, is practice necessary in order to realize nirv„«a? In Mah„y„na Buddhism the answer in both cases is that practice is necessary.